Repaired Auto's Value is Diminished Yet an Insurer has no Obligation to Insure Against that Risk of Loss
Post 5082
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gkhQsW74 and at https://lnkd.in/g9C29M8s, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
Yolanda Fincher appealed the judgment of the Hamilton County Municipal Court granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm" ).
Yolanda Fincher appealed the judgment of the Hamilton County Municipal Court granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm" ). Fincher sued State Farm for the diminished value of her vehicle following a car accident that damaged the car.
In Yolanda Fincher v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2025-Ohio-1752, No. C-240550, Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton (May 16, 2025) resolved her claim.
FACTUAL HISTORY
Fincher's complaint alleged that, on August 4, 2021, she was in a car accident with an uninsured motorist that injured her and damaged her car. She asserted that she retained an insurance contract with State Farm and that the company violated the contract by failing to cover the diminished value of her car.
She sought $14,500 in damages, representing the diminished value to her vehicle's Kelly Blue Book value plus interest.
After State Farm answered the complaint, the matter was referred to a magistrate for disposition. The magistrate scheduled a January 5, 2024 trial date. State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing in part that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Fincher's policy did not cover diminished value. State Farm supported its summary judgment motion with a certified copy of Fincher's policy, which its records custodian described as State's Farm ordinary business record. Fincher did not respond to State Farm's motion for summary judgment.
After the magistrate denied State Farm's summary judgment motion. State Farm objected to the magistrate's decision denying its motion for summary judgment. In its objection, State Farm argued that magistrate erred because Fincher had failed to rebut the summary judgment motion with disputed facts and because Fincher's policy excluded diminished value coverage.
Fincher responded but she cited no facts in evidence to support these assertions. In its response, State Farm pointed to the lack of evidence supporting Fincher's claims.
The trial court ruled on State Farm's objections and sustained State Farm's objection to the magistrate's decision and granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment. The trial court also granted State Farm's motion to strike and Fincher appealed.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
First, Fincher contended that the trial court acted unfairly in failing to grant her a continuance based on her legitimate medical needs and asserted that she is entitled to recover for the diminished value of her vehicle because she never received a copy of her policy from State Farm.
Summary judgment is proper under Civ.R. 56(C) where:
(1) no genuine issue of material fact remains,
(2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and
(3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion even when construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made.
The moving party has the initial burden of demonstrating its entitlement to summary judgment. State Farm, as the moving party met its initial burden by informing the trial court of the basis for the motion and identifying the portions of the record that demonstrate that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.
Then non-moving party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the party's pleadings. Instead, the non-moving party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the non-moving party fails to respond or to support its response with appropriate summary judgment evidence, the trial court may grant summary judgment.
The Finding
State Farm met its initial burden by presenting a certified copy of Fincher's insurance policy, which excluded coverage for diminished value. Once State Farm presented this evidence, the burden shifted to Fincher to provide evidence showing that there remained a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Fincher failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment and failed to sustain her burden as the non-moving party. The trial court's summary judgment decision was, accordingly correct.
The entire purpose of the summary judgment proceeding is to ascertain whether there were any issues to be tried in the case. Once the trial court determined there were not, it properly vacated the trial date.
Because Fincher's insurance contract with State Farm does not include diminished value coverage the trial court did not err in awarding summary judgment to State Farm.
Accordingly the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
ZALMA OPINION
At one time making an insurer pay for the diminished value of an insured car after it was repaired was exceedingly popular in courts across the country. Insurers like State Farm, who were made to pay for damages that were not expected or insured against, learned their lesson and put exclusions in the policy. Fincher's policy with State Farm contained that exclusion so she properly got nothing from her suit.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
